HDD LED light and RAM usage

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus/Smart Security Beta' started by yongsua, May 6, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Hi,after installed the BETA version I realize that my HDD LED light blinks more often than the previous version.Besides,it uses more RAM usage than the previous version.I hope the version 5 can be as light as EAV 4.Thanks.
     
  2. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Hmm... mine is not using more RAM it's at 26MB at the moment 70Mb at most :doubt:
     
  3. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Mine is using 59-70MB:(
     
  4. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    But that's normal my friend, and it's absolutely not higher than version 4.2 ;)
     
  5. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    No.For me,the V4 was much lower than V5.
     
  6. Nydarion

    Nydarion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Posts:
    2
  7. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
  8. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Hi,I just realize my ESET BETA uses lesser RAM usage.It is just as light as the previous version.Besides,I realize that whenever I initially install any ESET products,the RAM usage that uses by ESET is high.After a few hours or days,its RAM usage will become lesser and lesser.Could anyone explain this?Thanks.
     
  9. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    While ekrn.exe RAM average is 80 MB, I dont care.
    I hope this can speed up the on demand scanner by 50%
     
  10. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    So do you feel that it's heavy on your system, do you feel a drag during different tasks?

    FYI, version 4.2 had about the same RAM usage so it's not a big change, if any.

    For me it's just as light, if not EVEN lighter to be honest :thumb:
     
  11. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Haha.... See that's what I told you ;)
     
  12. Coccinelle

    Coccinelle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    France
    I run Windows 7 \x64,
    and Eset Nod32 4.2 use 60 000Ko Ram.
    The new Beta use 71 000 Ko.
    Avast and Norton Antivirus use 10 000 Ko.
    Can Eset use the same?
     
  13. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    No because they are developed differently.

    Why do you want ekrn.exe to use 10MB of RAM?

    FYI. Ekrn.exe includes all the protection loaded into the memory, and that helps reduce the I/O writes etc..., wich in return makes it run much lighter on the system. :thumb:

    FYI. Only because Norton uses 10MB of RAM doesn't make it lighter on the system. ;)
     
  14. Coccinelle

    Coccinelle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    France
    Yes is trouth but Norton is light.:D
     
  15. Coccinelle

    Coccinelle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    France
    Yes i now becous Eset have a 2 proces for all.
     
  16. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Agreed.Norton is one of the vendor that trying to lower RAM usage by hiding it by using virtual memory or the pagefile instead of physical memory (RAM).
     
  17. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Exactly, not good.
     
  18. nodyforever

    nodyforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Posts:
    549
    Location:
    PT / Lisbon
    Ram 4.2 = 5.0 for me


    Scan

    v 4.2 - 1h40m

    v5.0 - 1h07m
     
  19. 4L3X

    4L3X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Posts:
    40
    Memory usage on win7 x64

    Old version 4.2 = 58,500 KB
    New Beta 5.0.65 = 83,920 KB

    Uses more ram , but waaaaaaaaay faster
    System is as responsive as not using any AV Suite at all :D :D :D
     
  20. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Indeed, I agree. And it feels like when I'm browsing it goes faster now too.
    So they must have made some improvements to the Web-Access module :thumb:
     
  21. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    ^This is what we should be thinking.

    Why are people still complaining about RAM usage? I think there should be a setting for people that don't want to use any RAM so it can run entirely from the page file so that all of their RAM is free. I say run as much of it in RAM as possible so it is as fast as it can be. I don't buy RAM for it to sit empty. o_O
     
  22. Hagla007

    Hagla007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    49
    50%? I hpoe you mean 200%. 200% = twice as fast since 100% is 1 or in this case the current scan speed. Bad explanation.
     
  23. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia

    Hope you are not talking about me because I already changed my mind.:D :)
     
  24. stratoc

    stratoc Guest

    at least 3 of the big runners with super low ram usage only admit to part of it. uninstall the program and you may notice one less svchost.exe running.
    As has been said clever use of ram is a better written program. Windows 7, for example is a good at using ram. No point in having 4,8,16 gig of ram with nothing using it, it's still a lot faster than ssd drives and a load faster than traditional hdds.
     
  25. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    Last edited: May 10, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.